Head-to-head comparison of peak supine bicycle exercise echocardiography and treadmill exercise echocardiography at peak and at post-exercise for the detection of coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Supine bicycle exercise (SBE) echocardiography and treadmill exercise (TME) echocardiography have been used for evaluation of coronary artery disease (CAD). Although peak imaging acquisition has been considered unfeasible with TME, higher sensitivity for the detection of CAD has been recently found with this method compared with post-TME echocardiography. However, peak TME echocardiography has not been previously compared with the more standardized peak SBE echocardiography. The aim of this study was to compare peak TME echocardiography, peak SBE echocardiography, and post-TME echocardiography for the detection of CAD. METHODS: A series of 116 patients (mean age, 61 ± 10 years) referred for evaluation of CAD underwent SBE (starting at 25 W, with 25-W increments every 2-3 min) and TME with peak and postexercise imaging acquisition, in a random sequence. Digitized images at baseline, at peak TME, after TME, and at peak SBE were interpreted in a random and blinded fashion. All patients underwent coronary angiography. RESULTS: Maximal heart rate was higher during TME, whereas systolic blood pressure was higher during SBE, resulting in similar rate-pressure products. On quantitative angiography, 75 patients had coronary stenosis (≥50%). In these patients, wall motion score indexes at maximal exercise were higher at peak TME (median, 1.45; interquartile range [IQR], 1.13-1.75) than at peak SBE (median, 1.25; IQR, 1.0-1.56) or after TME (median, 1.13; IQR, 1.0-1.38) (P = .002 between peak TME and peak SBE imaging, P < .001 between post-TME imaging and the other modalities). The extent of myocardial ischemia (number of ischemic segments) was also higher during peak TME (median, 5; IQR, 2-12) compared with peak SBE (median, 3; IQR, 0-8) or after TME (median, 2; IQR, 0-4) (P < .001 between peak TME and peak SBE imaging, P < .001 between post-TME imaging and the other modalities). ST-segment changes in patients with CAD and normal baseline ST segments were higher during TME (median, 1 mm [IQR, 0-1.9 mm] vs 0 mm [IQR, 0-1.5 mm]; P = .006). The sensitivity of peak TME, peak SBE, and post-TME echocardiography for CAD was 84%, 75%, and 60% (P = .001 between post-TME and peak TME echocardiography, P = .055 between post-TME and peak SBE echocardiography), with specificity of 63%, 80%, and 78%, respectively (P = NS) and accuracy of 77%, 77%, and 66%, respectively (P = NS). Peak TME echocardiography diagnosed multivessel disease in 27 of the 40 patients with stenoses in more than one coronary artery, in contrast to 17 patients with peak SBE imaging and 12 with post-TME imaging (P < .05 between peak TME imaging and the other modalities). Image quality was similar with the three techniques. The duration of the test was longer with SBE echocardiography (9.5 ± 3.8 vs 7.6 ± 2.5 min, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: During TME and SBE, patients achieve similar double products. Ischemia is more extensive and frequent with peak TME, which makes peak TME a more valuable exercise echocardiographic modality to increase sensitivity. However, peak SBE should be preferred to TME if the latter is performed with postexercise imaging acquisition.

Safety and feasibility of returning patients early to their originating centers after transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: At present, little information is available on returning patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to their originating centers after transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the early return of these patients to their originating centers. METHODS: The cohort study involved 200 consecutive STEMI patients (age 62+/-13 years, 83% male) who were returned to their originating centers after PPCI. They were compared with a group of 297 patients with similar characteristics from our healthcare catchment area. The length of stay in the intervention hospital and major adverse cardiovascular events occurring within 30 days were recorded. RESULTS: The median length of stay in the intervention hospital was 8 hours. No adverse events occurred during transport in the group who returned to their originating centers. At 30-day follow-up, no significant difference was observed between patients who returned and the control group in either mortality (1.0% vs. 3.7%; P=.064), readmission (5.0% vs. 4.5%; P=.657), ischemic complications (2.5% vs. 2.0%; P=.721), re-catheterization (5.0% vs. 2.5%; P=.112), stroke (1% vs. 1%; P=.936) or the composite end-point (11% vs. 9.2%; P=.540). Multivariate analysis showed that returning patients after PPCI was not associated with a significantly greater number of major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio=1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.80). CONCLUSIONS: The early return of patients with low-risk STEMI to their originating centers after PPCI was safe and feasible.

Seguridad y viabilidad del retorno precoz de pacientes transferidos para angioplastia primaria a sus centros de origen / Safety and feasibility of returning patients early to their originating centers after transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention

Introducción y objetivos. Hasta la fecha existen pocos datos sobre la posibilidad de retornar a los pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo con elevación del segmento ST (SCACEST) trasladados para angioplastia primaria (AP) a su centro de referencia. El objetivo de este estudio es evaluar la seguridad y viabilidad del retorno precoz de dichos pacientes a sus centros de origen. Métodos. Análisis de cohortes constituido por 200 pacientes consecutivos (edad, 62 ± 13 años; el 83% varones) devueltos a su centro de origen tras la realización de AP, comparándolos con un grupo de 297 pacientes de similares características pertenecientes a nuestra área sanitaria. Se analizó el tiempo de estancia en el hospital intervencionista y los eventos cardiovasculares de más de 30 días. Resultados. La mediana de permanencia en nuestro hospital fue de 8 h. El grupo retornado no presentó ningún evento durante el traslado al hospital de origen. A los 30 días no se observaron diferencias significativas entre los pacientes retornados y los del grupo control respecto a muerte (el 1 frente al 3,7%; p = 0,064), reingreso (el 5 frente al 4,5%; p = 0,657), complicaciones isquémicas (el 2,5 frente al 2%; p = 0,721), realización de nuevo cateterismo (el 5 frente al 2,5%; p = 0,112), accidentes cerebrovasculares (el 1 frente al 1%; p = 0,936) o el evento combinado (el 11 frente al 9,2%; p = 0,540). En un análisis multivariable, el retorno de los pacientes no se asoció con un mayor número de eventos cardiovasculares (odds ratio = 1,32; intervalo de confianza del 95%, 0,62-2,80). Conclusiones. El retorno precoz de pacientes con IAM de bajo riesgo a su centro de origen tras AP es seguro y viable (AU)

Introduction and objectives. At present, little information is available on returning patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) to their originating centers after transfer for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of the early return of these patients to their originating centers. Methods. The cohort study involved 200 consecutive STEMI patients (age 62±13 years, 83% male) who were returned to their originating centers after PPCI. They were compared with a group of 297 patients with similar characteristics from our healthcare catchment area. The length of stay in the intervention hospital and major adverse cardiovascular events occurring within 30 days were recorded. Results. The median length of stay in the intervention hospital was 8 hours. No adverse events occurred during transport in the group who returned to their originating centers. At 30-day follow-up, no significant difference was observed between patients who returned and the control group in either mortality (1.0% vs. 3.7%; P=.064), readmission (5.0% vs. 4.5%; P=.657), ischemic complications (2.5% vs. 2.0%; P=.721), re-catheterization (5.0% vs. 2.5%; P=.112), stroke (1% vs. 1%; P=.936) or the composite end-point (11% vs. 9.2%; P=.540). Multivariate analysis showed that returning patients after PPCI was not associated with a significantly greater number of major adverse cardiovascular events (odds ratio=1.32; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-2.80). Conclusions. The early return of patients with low-risk STEMI to their originating centers after PPCI was safe and feasible (AU)

Prognostic value of mitral regurgitation assessment during exercise echocardiography in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: Although mitral regurgitation (MR) may be assessed during exercise echocardiography (EE) there are no data regarding its value for predicting outcome in large series of patients. We sought to determine whether the predictive value of EE is maintained over clinical variables and resting echocardiography when the latter included information on MR, and to verify whether postexercise MR may improve the value of EE for predicting outcome. METHODS: In all, 1916 patients (mean age +/- 1SD = 62 +/- 11 years; mean left ventricular ejection fraction +/- 1SD = 56 +/- 11) referred for EE were followed up for 1.9 +/- 1.4 years. RESULTS: There were 87 cardiac events before revascularization: 67 events occurred in 948 patients with abnormal EE and 20 events occurred in 968 patients with normal EE (P < .0001), whereas there were 24 events in the 218 patients with moderate or higher resting MR and 63 events in the 1698 patients with no or mild MR (P < .0001). Previous myocardial infarction, resting MR, peak double product, and peak left ventricular ejection fraction were independently associated to hard events (chi2 model = 144, P < .0001). The same variables were associated to cardiac death (chi2 model = 141, P < .0001). Predictors of cardiac events in patients with abnormal EE were resting MR, resting wall-motion score index, metabolic equivalents, peak double product, and MR worsening (incremental P value of MR worsening = .03). Predictors of cardiac death were resting MR, peak double product, peak left ventricular ejection fraction, and MR worsening (incremental P value of MR worsening = .03). CONCLUSIONS: EE maintains its higher prognostic value over resting echocardiography even when the latter incorporates information on resting MR. MR worsening provides significant incremental prognostic information in patients with abnormal EE.

Comparison of exercise echocardiography and the Duke treadmill score for risk stratification in patients with known or suspected coronary artery disease and normal resting electrocardiogram.

BACKGROUND: Although exercise echocardiography (EE) is not clearly indicated in patients with normal electrocardiogram (ECG) as the first evaluation, there is a lack of data regarding its superiority over the Duke score for prognosis. We investigate whether EE has incremental value over the Duke score for predicting outcome in patients with normal ECG. METHODS: One thousand six hundred forty-seven patients with interpretable ECG referred for EE were followed up for 2.5 +/- 1.4 years. There were 58 hard events (myocardial infarction or cardiovascular death). RESULTS: There were 38 events in 735 patients with abnormal EE versus 20 events in 912 with normal EE (P < .0001). The Duke score, resting wall motion score index, and ischemia were independently associated to events (incremental P value of EE = .03). The Duke score allowed stratification of patients with abnormal EE (P = .001) or ischemia (P = .01) into different risk categories but did not stratify patients without these characteristics. Exercise echocardiography variables stratified patients with the low Duke score (left anterior descending artery territory P = .04, left anterior descending artery ischemia P = .03) and with the intermediate Duke score (abnormal EE P = .005, necrosis P = .0009, ischemia P = .004, resting ejection fraction P < .00001, resting wall motion score index P < .00001, peak ejection fraction P < .00001, peak wall motion score index P < .0001, number of territories P = .002, left anterior descending artery territory P = .001, and left anterior descending artery ischemia P = .002) but did not with the high Duke score. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise echocardiography has incremental value over clinical variables, the Duke score, and resting echocardiography for the prediction of hard cardiovascular events in patients with normal resting ECG.